Talk:Honokiol

Synthesis
The synthesis (Image:Honokiol Synthesis.jpg) doesn't seem to be correct. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The first structure is supposedly a carboxylic acid (HO2C- instead of HC2O-).
 * 2) The second step is missing a reagent (something like boric acid).
 * 3) Where does the benzylic alcohol in the fifth formula come from (the left one)?

You're right, the reaction scheme is missing a lot of information. The boron compound comes in part (c).

According to the cited article, 1). Reagents, conditions, and yields: (a) concd H2SO4, MeOH, reﬂux overnight, 100%; (b) MOMCl, i-Pr2NEt, DMF, rt, 3 h, 100%; (c) bis(pinacolato)diborane, 10 mol % PdCl2 (dppf), dppf, AcOK, 1,4-dioxane, 80 °C, 86%; (d) "6", 10 mol % PdCl2 (dppf), dppf, K3PO4, dioxane, reﬂux, 87%; (e) LiAlH4, THF, 0 °C, 99%, (f) 47% HF/pyridine/MeCN (1/3/5), rt, 1 h, 98%; (g) NBS, PPh3 , CH2 Cl2 , 80%; (h) HC=C(H)MgBr, CuI, THF, -26 °C, 52%; (i) 2 M HCl, MeOH (5/1), rt, 44 h, 89%

The reaction steps are combined in the given scheme: first (a) and (b), then (c), then (d), then (e) and (f), then (g) and (h), then (i). Note that the "6" mentioned in (d) is the aryl bromide that provides the TBSO-CH2-Ph-OMOM group.

Your suspicions on the benzylic alcohol is well-spotted. The fourth formula is missing a carbon between the ring and the -OTBS group.

--67.180.149.113 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of the numerous errors in the image (as noted here) and the vague description, I have removed the whole synthesis section until it can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.216 (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential reference
--Ronz (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fried, L.E. / Arbiser, J.L. “Honokiol, a multifunctional antiangiogenic and antitumor agent”, Antioxidants & Redox Signaling (2009),11(5):1139-1148.

Thank you for your opinion and suggestion.

This review is meant for readers who would like to delve deeper into the subject. The review is placed in the “further reading” – section because the Wikipedia guideline for this section read: “… publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. The Further reading section (…) should normally not duplicate the content of the References section” (WP:FURTHER).

The Wikipedia content guideline for “Identifying reliable sources (medicine)” (WP:MEDRS) read: “It is usually best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible.”

The review in question reflect the latest research (last 10 years) in the field, it is scholarly and peer-reviewed, and it is published in an academic journal. Granateple (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the resource suggestion. The review was incorporated in a rewrite of the page for an academic assignment. Jsiemer3 (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Peer Review Article Assignment Points

1. Quality of Information: 2 Nice usage of scientific papers to support the content. 2. Article size: 1 You're halfway there but this is not sufficient. The sum of content you added needs to be 15-25 MB's and you still have to add more content to get to that. 3. Readability: 2 It was well written with what you have, but you still have to add more content. However, for the studies, try to use multiple sources if you can. 4. Refs:2 Had the number needed for the assignment. 5. Links:2 Had plenty of links going to other pages. 6. Responsive to comments:2 7. Formatting:2 I liked the flow of the article. 8. Writing: 1 I am noticing small grammar mistakes with missing commas and such so please fix that. An example is the usage of additionally, which should be followed by a comma. 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2 Used their real name. 10. Outstanding?:1 Still needs work Total:  16  out of 20

Hifzasakhi (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

good information

2. Article size:1

add more content to fall within 15-25 MB range

3. Readability:1

kind of hard to read without required background. Also, history should go before introduction. Kind of delves straight into technical stuff without required background. Maybe merge medical uses in history.

4. Refs:2

fits within required range

5. Links: 1

some red links, may want to fix this

6. Responsive to comments:2

not really applicable comments are old

7. Formatting:1

format is okay but can be improved. I like the idea of sub-headings, but I think this may be better formatted into a table.

8. Writing:1

writing style alternates between technical and general audience. Maybe intermix these two styles more seamlessly to make it more readable.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2

10. Outstanding?:2

liked the images and graphics, so I think these are outstanding.

Total:  15  out of 20

Jim Schwoebel (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

Interesting and unique. More related to chemistry.

2. Article size:1

It seems you only contribute 9000 bytes.

3. Readability: 2

Lots of jargon. It is because of the level of this topic.

4. Refs:2

Meet the requirement. Some of the references do not include PMIDs, remember Dr. Potter mentioned to put all the PMIDs.

5. Links: 1

It will be better if you also link hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic interactions, aromatic in chemistry part. Also link GABA too. I am surprised that this is not linked. There are some more should be linked.

6. Responsive to comments:2

not applicable.

7. Formatting:2

Nice job

8. Writing:1

pleitropic should be spell as pleiotropic in the part of medical use, and please link it too. Also, is there any reason for writing Journal of Chromatography A in the part of Purification? Otherwise, it can be deleted.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2

10. Outstanding?:2

Good effort. Like what you compared with different cultural use.

Total:  15  out of 20

Fu Hung Shiu (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)